TENTH NIGHT.

HC Deb 26 June 1883 vol 280 cc1557-618

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

—Illegal Practices.

Clause 6 (Certain expenditure to be illegal practice).

MR. STANTON

said, the decision which the Committee had arrived at had not, he was glad to say, touched the main issue of the important question which he was about to lay before them. He had not voted for the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton); not because he did not approve of the principle which that Amendment contained, but because he did not wish to make any distinction between the boroughs and the counties with reference to the conveyance of electors to the poll. They had had a long discussion last night upon this vexed question, and he could not help saying that there had been manifested a great difference of opinion amongst hon. Members upon the subject; but as the Attorney General had shown himself to be unwilling that the expenses of conveyance should be paid, ho regarded it as almost hopeless to attempt to carry his Amendment. There was no doubt that the general sense of the Committee had been expressed against that Amendment, and he might fairly take it that the principal reason why Members objected to the payment for the conveyance of voters to the poll was on the score of excessive expenditure. This Bill was notoriously intended to operate for the reduction of the expenditure at elections, and it was only natural that hon. Members who were in favour of that principle should wish to reduce the large item of cost which came under the head of conveyance. But of all the expenses connected with elections that which was incurred for the conveyance of voters to the poll for the purpose of recording their votes was, in his opinion, the most legitimate. If men were to have the franchise at all he could not help thinking that it was only right that considerable facilities should be afforded them for the purpose of recording their votes. And he quite agreed with the statement that had been made, over and over again in the course of these discussions, that there would be a large disfranchisement of voters if the Bill were carried in its present form. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had told them there were 7,000 electors in that town which it would disfranchise in the sense that had been explained; and he added his testimony to that of the hon. Member that a very large number of electors would also be disfranchised in the borough which he had the honour to represent (Stroud). He took it that upon the average throughout the country at least 4 per cent of the electors would be disfranchised in this way. Now, as he had already said, he thought it incumbent on them to make the act of voting on the part of these persons as easy as possible, and as far as he could see there were only two ways by which this result could be arrived at. Either they must allow the expenses of conveyance to be paid, or else they must adopt some method by which voters who lived at a distance from the polling stations could record their votes at home; in other words, they must adopt the system of voting papers. That question, however, would be raised by the noble Lord the Member for North Nottinghamshire (Viscount Galway), who had placed an Amendment on the Paper. Ho would, therefore, not detain the Committee any further on that point. He rose for the purpose of advocating the claims of the out-voters, and that subject he thought had not yet been sufficiently discussed. There were three or four classes of out-voters. First, there were the faggot voters in counties, with whom he had not much sympathy, and whom he should not be sorry to see abolished. He would remind the Committee that one large source of expen- diture would be removed if faggot voters were disfranchised. He thought they were now approaching manhood suffrage. ["No, no"] There was no doubt that the term "manhood suffrage" sounded very Radical in the ears of some hon. Members; but he could assure them that there was nothing of that character about it. They must have voters with a certain habitation and a name. Now, as they wore assimilating the franchise as between boroughs and counties, he did not see why they should not adopt residential manhood suffrage in the counties, as they practically had it now in the boroughs. In that way they should get rid of a largo item of expenditure, and then it might fairly be said that this conveyance of voters would not be so objectionable to county Members on the score of large expense. There was another class of out-voters who would be entirely disfranchised if the Bill passed in its present form, and who, ho said, ought not to be disfranchised. With these he had much more sympathy than with the last. This class consisted of voters who, from some cause over which they had no control, had removed their residence to some distance from the polling place, and would, in consequence, be disfranchised because they could not afford, supposing they were labouring men, to give up half-a-day's work or more in order to attend the poll; and, inasmuch as the Bill would not allow their railway fares to be paid, they were under a great disability as compared with those voters who lived nearer to the polling stations. Another class of out-voters consisted of labourers and artizans in the service of large employers of labour engaged in building, or in constructing railways, or similar undertakings, and these were often sent for weeks or months together into the neighbouring counties, or it might be to the extremities of the Kingdom. It was quite impossible that a man so situated could come up to the poll and record his vote. He would, therefore, be entirely disfranchised. He said that men of this class were deserving of consideration at the hands of the House, and he sincerely hoped that something might be done to enable them to vote by voting paper. If the House was determined not to allow the expense of conveyance to be paid, either by one candidate or by two candi- dates jointly, this system must be resorted to, unless the class of persons he had described were to be practically disfranchised. He would remind the Committee that the out-voter was one of the great sources of the Petitions against Members, made with the object of unseating them after they had gone through so much labour. The Committee would be aware of the position which out-voters occupied in relation to almost all elections. Every lion. Member knew well that the first questions an election agent asked with regard to any borough were—First, "How many public-houses have you got?" Secondly, "What are you going to do with the out-voters? "He knew that those matters largely exercised the ingenuity of clever election agents. For these reasons, he thought that something ought to lie done to assist out-voters in recording their votes both in boroughs and counties. He would ask the Commitee to consider fairly who it was that this clause would disfranchise. First in importance were the out-voters, whom he took most seriously under his care. But this question of conveyance had. been discussed irrespective of the out-voters, and had turned more especially on allowing voters who lived at a short distance to be brought up to the poll. That question having been decided in the negative, he would point out that the clause would disfranchise the sick, the lame, and the infirm, who constituted, unhappily, a large class. It was certain that these people could not, and would not, vote if the Bill passed in its present form. But there were two ways in which this difficulty might be remedied; and he was happy to see that the matter had been taken in hand by Her Majesty's Government, with a view to increase the number of polling places, which would enable voters who lived at a long distance from the polling station to record their votes without saerificing a day's pay, or interfering with their ordinary labour. The other question they had to consider was whether they could devise any satisfactory system which would enable these persons to vote; and, with that object in view, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 22, after the word "otherwise," to insert the words "unless such electors he residing, at the time of the election, beyond the county or borough, or at a distance of more than three miles from the polling place at which they maybe entitled to vote."—(Mr. Stanton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he must appeal to his hon. Friend to consider whether he was not, in moving this Amendment, taking a course which would unnecessarily prolong the discussion of this Bill? The Committee had begun to discuss the question of conveyance at 8 o'clock yesterday evening, and during four hours and a-half every topic in connection with that subject had been argued over and over again. The Amendment of the hon. Member was the same as that embodied in the other Amendments which had been discussed. They had already considered the question with reference to voters living in counties and boroughs, whether they lived near the voting places or not, and thou they had proceeded to discuss whether they could take in those voters who lived outside. He was bound to say that his hon. Friend had used no argument which had any novelty about it in advocating his Amendment; ho had, in fact, only repeated what had been said in the course of the discussion last night. He therefore trusted his hon. Friend would forgive him if he did not enter upon any one of those general considerations with regard to polling places, ballet papers, £c. They had a great deal of business remaining to be done; and he thought it would be a very severe task upon hon. Members if, after the discussion that had taken place, these matters were again to be debated. It had been repeated, on behalf of the Government, more than once, that they had to deal with this question in all its bearings. Amongst the many suggestions that presented themselves they had to consider which were good and which wore bad. They had already got rid of some difficulties, and they believed that what of difficulty remained might still be overcome by zeal and perseverance.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he could not agree to the terms in which the Attorney General had referred to the Amendment lie had ventured to introduce to the Committee yesterday, amidst a general buzz of conversation, largely contributed to, he was bound to say, by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. The Attorney General had all luded to his Amendment as having been been discussed and negatived. Ho, however, begged to remark that it was neither. Those Members who had been able to hear him would admit that the Amendment was introduced in a very brief speech, and that it was followed by a correspondingly brief conversation, during which the merits of the question were scarcely touched upon. Beyond moving his Amendment, he had said little else than that as there were other Amendments on the Paper that would raise the question which he desired to place before hon. Members he would not detain the Committee at any length. But as he gathered that an attempt was likely to be made—though he could not bring himself to believe that it could possibly be successful—to prevent his noble Friend from raising the question involved in his Amendment, it beloved Gentlemen on those Benches who were in favour of the principle to consider the subject more fully. Ho was disposed to agree with the Attorney General that some part of this question had been dealt with yesterday afternoon; but ho would remind the Committee that the discussion was of an irregular character, and wholly applied to voters who, although resident at a distance of three nines from the voting stations, were, nevertheless, resident in the constituency. Those persons could not be called out-voters, but they were certainly included in some of the proposals discussed yesterday. That being so, he would not dilate upon the second part of the Amendment, but would recommend the hon. Member to press upon the Government the first part of it, which raised an important question that had never been fully considered by Parliament. In the Parliament before last it was true that the subject had engaged the attention of the House, and at that time the opinion was expressed generally that voters resident outside constituencies should be protected in their right to exercise the franchise. But the Attorney General, who was in charge of the Bill, entertained opinions with regard to the franchise which he trusted were his alone, and not those of the Government. He had laid himself under the necessity of expressing an opinion in favour of an uniform residential franchise. He (Mr. Lowther) was aware that the question of manhood suffrage, to which the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) had alluded, was an open question in the counsels of Her Majesty's Government. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.] Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that that was the case?—because, if so, he was sure his statement would be gladly welcomed throughout the country. But he was not to be deterred, oven by disorderly interruption, from pointing out that the right of every voter to exercise the franchise was one that, so long as he possessed it, that House was bound to protect. How did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General propose that a voter resident outside the limits of the constituency should record his vote? He would possibly tell the Committee that the voter must get to the poll the best way he could; but that would practically debar a number of persons from discharging the duty imposed upon them by the Constitution. If the Government did intend practically to abolish the out-voter by this mode of disfranchisement; if the object of the clause was to get rid of those who, as he had remarked last night, held the most ancient franchise in the Realm, it was only right that the Committee should be informed of it, and that, too, by the Head of Her Majesty's Government in his place in Parliament. But he assumed that Parliament intended that voters should have reasonable facilities afforded them for the purpose of recording their votes; and, therefore, if the hon. Member for Stroud would modify his Amendment so as not to travel over the ground which the Attorney General fairly said was covered last night, ho believed it would commend itself to many Members of the Committee.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) had made a second appeal to the Committee on the question of out-voters. Ho did not, however, think the question was as important as it was assumed to be. In the county of Durham there were 1,074 out-voters; and, having gone carefully over the lists some time ago, he found that they, as nearly as possible, voted equally on both sides. The cost of the tickets sent to these voters last Election was about £486, and the amount was equally divided between the candidates. The right hon. Gentleman said that the clause would practically disfranchise many out-voters; but he would ask, was the candidate to be the person to enfranchise them? The rights of an elector were regulated by certain rules and laws enacted by Parliament, and it was not for the candidate to say that the elector was to be put in a position to exercise the franchise. There was nothing in the clause to prevent a man from sending his friends to the poll in his own conveyance, and that practice was adopted at the last elections for Northumberland and Herefordshire. But it was useless to bring up out-voters, who had no practical effect in deciding the result of the election. If they looked over the lists of out-voters, they would find they were generally the private friends of candidates having no interest whatever in the constituencies beyond their 40s. freehold. The best way to deal with the question was to allow out-voters to take care of themselves in the matter of voting. For his own part, he objected to the out-voters applying to the candidates to pay their fares to Durham, say from London, or places even more distant, when the payment for a 210 miles' journey was only £1.

MR. GREGORY

said, he did not think the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) had chosen a very convenient time for raising the question with reference to out-voters; because, although it was one that would have to be dealt with before they parted from the Bill altogether, it had no connection with the clause under consideration. He would place on the Paper a new clause, which he thought would practically provide for out-voters in the exercise of the franchise; and on the present occasion he rose for the purpose of reserving his right of making that proposal at the proper time.

MR. RAIKES

said, he was unable to agree with the words that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). He felt that it was not always the most convenient way of settling a question to bring it forward on a new clause; ho thought it better, when the question was germane to the clause under consideration, to deal with it at once. The hon. Member for South Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) had deprecated all payment on account of the conveyance of out-voters, on the ground that, as a rule, they voted equally on both sides; but that seemed to him to be rather the view of a political partizan than of a person who wished to give voters an opportunity of exercising the franchise. The question, however, was as to whether out-voters were to be deprived by a side-wind of the franchise they possessed by means of this clause? That was the point, and he was glad to hear from the statement of the hon. Baronet that a contrary opinion prevailed amongst the out-voters in his own district. The hon. Baronet asked why was the candidate to pay for the enfranchisement of these persons? To which he (Mr. Raikes) replied that it was simply because no one else thought it worth while to do so. ["Hear, hear!"] It was always gratifying to be cheered by the hon. Gentleman; but, in the present instance, his cheer told against himself, because if the central organizations of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and elsewhere, devoted themselves to pay for the travelling expenses of out-voters, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent their doing so. He confessed to entertaining the opinion that when the Attorney General said he would not recapitulate the arguments which had been used yesterday, he said so because ho felt himself unable to moot the arguments advanced in favour of the present Amendment. He should cordially support the hon. Member for Stroud if he went to a Division on his Amendment; because, while it seemed to him fairly to express the voice of the country with reference to this matter, it would avoid the strong tinge of hypocrisy shown in preventing one person from doing that which a body a persons were allowed to do with impunity.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he hoped the Committee would not agree to any of the suggestions with regard to the conveyance of voters to the poll. It appeared to him that they ought not to assent to the carriage of voters, either by coach, railway, or other means. Again, he hoped the Committee would not agree to allowing persons to vote by voting papers, which system had in Ireland led to a large amount of undue influence and fraud. He wished to impress upon the Committee the desirability of requiring persons, who happened to live at a distance, to go to the poll and put their tickets into the ballet-box in the same way as other voters had to do.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he should be glad to know who were those exiled patriots whom this Amendment was intended to protect? Ho understood they were only 40s. freeholders; and, if so, they were nothing else than faggot voters. They were not bonâ fide voters, having an interest in the locality at all events; and if the effect of the Bill should be to disfranchise them altogether he should not be sorry.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken was altogether wrong in his opinion with regard to the out-voters. They were a very numerous class, and, as a rule, possessed a considerable amount of property in the counties, although they did not reside on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had referred to one point which he would strongly commend to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The great danger was that unless some precaution were taken a large amount of money would be spent by associations at Birmingham, Leeds, and elsewhere, such as had been referred to; and before they passed from the Bill, he thought some provision must be inserted in order to prevent the state of things to which his right hon. Friend had alluded. If the penalty for conveyance of voters was so great that the candidate would lose his seat, and the agent be liable to punishment, some provision must be introduced not only with regard to the candidate and his agent, but also for the purpose of dealing with the associations in question.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he should be glad if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stanton), would inform the Committee what was meant by the term faggot voter? Until they had some definition of the term he thought the Committee had better abstain from passing the clause.

MR. HICKS

said, he thought it desirable, before they went to a Division on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud, that the Attorney General should favour the Committee with his opinion with regard to the next Amendment on the Paper, and the manner in which he intended to deal with it; because if the hon. and learned Gentleman were disposed to meet that Amendment in a conciliatory spirit, he believed it would remove all necessity for dividing on the present question. He wished, as much as possible, to reduce expenses at elections, and remove the opportunities of bribery and corruption. And he thought that if out-voters were allowed to give their votes in the same way, and under the same restrictions, as votes were given at the Universities, all the objections to this part of the clause, as it was now drawn, would be removed, and the present Amendment might at once be negatived. Ono word with regard to out-voters. Ho could not admit that they were properly categorized by the term faggot voters; on the contrary, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that many of them were holders of property in the counties that had belonged to their relations for generations.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he was able to confirm the statement of the Attorney General, to the effect that the points raised by this Amendment had been discussed on the previous day. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton) had stated, at the beginning of his speech, that ho did not know whether he was justified in presenting this Amendment to the Committee. If the hon. Member was himself in doubt, he would suggest that the best course would be to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. WHITLEY

said, it was true they had had a long discussion last night on the general question of conveying voters to the poll; but it appeared to him that none of the remedies proposed were satisfactory. He thought it would have been bettor had the hon. Member for Stroud introduced into his Amendment the word "working," as well as "residing," because it would have met the difficulty raised by him last night. His objection was that the polling booths would not be near the working man, and that the dinner hour would be too short, in many cases, to allow him to record his vote. He wished to draw attention to one of the remedies proposed by the President of the Local Government Board. He could not imagine any course more detrimental than that which the right hon. Gentleman had suggested, which was to give the working men a holiday on the day of election. Nothing, in his opinion, was more likely to lead to corruption than an arrangement of that kind. At one election, at which he was present, all the factory girls turned out, and a more demoralizing result could not have been witnessed. Ho thought that the proposal, that working men should turn out on the day of election, probably with their wages in their pockets, was calculated to lead to the grossest corruption, and he was therefore unable to agree to it. Ho believed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud was absolutely necessary to meet the present difficulty; and if he proceeded to a Division he should certainly vote with him.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had not quite correctly quoted him. Ho had simply pointed out that the Ballot Bill proposed to extend the hours of polling, and that this would enable those electors to vote who were not allowed a holiday by their employers on polling days.

MR. STANTON

said, after the appeals made to him lie was willing to withdraw his Amendment. His proposal was more particularly intended for the protection of out-voters, properly so called, who, although they ought to be enabled to record their votes, would be absolutely disfranchised by the clause in its present form. Although he might have been in error in reviving the question with regard to voters who lived at short distances from the polling stations, after the discussion of last evening ho could not but feel that the question of the conveyance of out-voters residing at considerable distances had hardly received the consideration to which it was entitled. With these remarks, be would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 163: Majority 95.—(Div. List, No. 151.)

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:—Page 3, line 22, after "otherwise," insert— Provided, That any voter residing more than fifteen miles from the nearest polling station shall be permitted to send in a voting paper, duly attested before a justice of the peace, stating which of the candidates he votes for, and such voting paper shall be accepted by the returning officer as a valid vote, and the expenses for sending out such voting papers may be borne by the candidates.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have carefully considered this Amendment. The Bill, a clause of which the noble Viscount proposes to amend, is a Bill for the prevention of corrupt practices; but the Amendment of the noble Viscount relates to a mode of voting which is dealt with in another Bill—namely, the Ballet Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, the consideration of which the House has already entered upon. The noble Viscount's Amendment, therefore, would not be in Order hero. Were I to admit it, I fail to see how other Amendments to the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill could be excluded.

MR. GORST

rose—

VISCOUNT GALWAY

rose to Order. He said, the question his Amendment dealt with had been frequently alluded to both by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and other Members of Her Majesty's Ministry, and he (Viscount Galway) had naturally thought that his proposal would be allowed to come in here, especially as part of the Amendment dealt with the expense of the candidate upon the particular point with which the proposal dealt. He would ask whether, inasmuch as the Ballot Act would come to a termination before this Bill could come into operation, if the Committee were to decide in favour of his Amendment now, would it not be competent then for the Government to frame the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill in accordance with this measure?

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not quite see the point the noble Viscount wishes to raise.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, there was a point upon which he should like to get the opinion of the Chairman. The Proviso his noble Friend desired to move contained not only a provision as to permission to a voter to vote by means of a voting paper, but also provided that the expense of sending out such voting papers might be borne by the candidates. He wished to know whether this was a point that could be dealt with in the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, and whether that measure would not raise a totally different question from that which was raised by this Bill, of which one of the most important features was the limitation of expenses to be incurred? It was obvious that one point his noble Friend would raise would be this—that permission should be given to send voting papers, and that permission should be given in the Schedule of this Bill for the payment and sending out of such papers. Could that point be dealt with in the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, or could it be dealt with in this measure?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he wished to make an observation on the point of Order. If this Amendment were carried, they would be repealing a clause of the Ballot Act. The Ballot Act said that they should take a vote in a certain way—namely, by ballot in the polling booth, where the voting paper was to be delivered into the hand of the voter by the Returning Officer. If this Amendment were adopted, it would introduce a now system; and though it was true that the latter part of the Amendment dealt with the expense of sending out voting papers in the way proposed, yet any Amendment upon almost any subject might be exercised in the same way—namely, because the expense would be dealt with in the Schedule of the Bill. The offence could only come into existence by their first altering the method of voting. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) asked whether this could be dealt with in the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, and his reply was that any alteration that affected the mode of voting could, no doubt, be dealt with in that measure. He should certainly think that if there were any expenditure resulting from an altered mode of voting it could be dealt with in that Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he also had a word to say on the point of Order before the Chairman answered the question put by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote). He wished to ask whether it was the case that previous to the time when the present Bill, if it passed into an Act, would become law, the Ballot Act which at present prevailed would cease to be the law of the land unless, in the meantime, it were re-enacted by the Legislature? Was that the case? Was it out of Order, he would ask, to insert in the Bill these provisions, although they might run counter to provisions contained in an Act which would expire before the present measure would come into operation?

THE CHAIRMAN

I base my decision on the fact that the Amendment of the noble Viscount is not relative to the subject-matter of this Bill, and on that account is not in Order.

MR. GORST

said, the next Amendment on the Paper stood in his name, and proposed to insert, in line 22, after the word "or," the words "on account of the canvassing of votes." No doubt, by this Bill the payment of canvassers was made illegal. It might be said that they were not necessary; but that would apply to the whole category of illegal practices not specifically mentioned. These payments had hitherto been legal, and they were now, for the first time, to be made illegal. Paid canvassers were perfectly legal, and it was proposed in this Bill to make their employment illegal. Therefore, he thought it had better be specifically set out amongst the rest of illegal practices. His Amendment would draw attention to the fact, that that which had hitherto been perfectly innocent would now become an illegal act.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, this Amendment had already been before the Committee. It was yesterday called on during a rather unattractive part of the evening, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) was accidentally not present. It was moved, however, in his behalf and disposed of.

MR. GORST

Then, of course, I will not proceed with the Amendment. I will withdraw it at once.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he only wished to explain how the matter stood. It was not necessary for him to say anything with regard to the proposal, as he had stated his views respecting it at the last Sitting.

MR. SHEIL

said, that in line 23, Subsection 1, he wished to move to leave out the words "to an elector." He might say he could claim no originality for this Amendment, as he had copied it from the Bill introduced by the Attorney General; it was only bringing into force what it was intended by the hon. and learned Member last year should be the law. He would merely content himself with moving the Amendment, and pointing out to the Committee that the proposal, if it commended itself to the Committee, would have the effect of putting an end to extravagant expenditure that could be now legally incurred by the use of placards and posters during an election. Very few of them who had undergone the expense of a contest could forget the item in their bills for placarding and so on.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, sub-section 1 (b), to leave out the words "to an elector."—(Mr. Sheil.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Clause."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had no doubt the hon. Member was right when he said the words "to an elector" did not appear in the Bill of last year. But in the present Bill it was deemed advisable to pursue a middle course. On the one hand, there would be many cases of corruption where there were large payments, and sometimes great imposition was practised on a candidate in the matter of getting a great many people to put up notices and placards in their windows and on their premises. In some places constituencies were corrupted wholesale in this way. It had been felt that to leave open such a door as this, and thus allow payments to be made to an elector for putting up these notices, would be very dangerous. It might have been said to a voter—"Let me put up one of my bills in your window, and I will give you L5 for it." But whilst they wished to check this corruption, they desired to allow some freedom of action to candidates. There were many people who carried on a legitimate trade by posting bills and notices on such places as disused premises or hoardings, and it would not be right to object to payments being made to such persons for putting up notices. The Bill would stop this practice where it was not legitimate, but would permit it where it was right and proper. He had endeavoured to meet every view of the question, and ho had stated, in Sub-section 3, that these payments might be made whore it was the ordinary practice of an elector to receive payment for the use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of bills and advertisements. Where an elector received payment in this way in the exercise of his ordinary trade or business, such elector would not be allowed to vote, or, if he did, his vote would be void.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, the effect of this Amendment in boroughs at the present time would be—and he supposed it would be the case also in counties, if the county franchise were extended—that the only person who would be allowed to exhibit these notices would be the female householder. Supposing the Amendment were adopted, if they wanted the use of a house in a borough, they would not be able to take that of any elector.

MR. CALLAN

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was confusing himself. The Government were pledged to the extension of the borough franchise to counties; and, therefore, when they had fulfilled their pledge they would have every householder in a county, equally with every householder in a borough, unable to exhibit placards. He was thoroughly well acquainted with both counties and boroughs in Ireland; and ho must say that if the Bill stood as it was now framed, the effect of its operation would be to offer a kind of bribe to the Radical Press. How would they be able to publish election addresses or notices if they prevented residents from exhibiting such things on their premises? [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Do not pay for them.] All constituencies were not so perfect as the constituency of Chelsea. Besides, all constituencies had not the paraphernalia of the Eleusis Club, and they had not all so many doors and windows and hoardings. He knew many places in Ireland where they would not get notices put up if they did not pay for them; and the legislation proposed in this section of the Bill was of a grandmotherly kind, which he very much objected to. If they did not amend the clause, let them leave it out altogether.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he had thought the Amendment an excellent one, and he had been confirmed in that opinion by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the words proposed to be left out were not in the Bill when originally brought in, and that it was a second thought that induced him to insert them. He thought that if they allowed a non-elector, or a female, who hoped to become an elector, to make money by these notices, they would be giving occasion to the grossest expenditure and danger of corruption.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that his hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell), and all those who had taken part in the discussion, had forgotten the fact of the existence in this Bill of a Schedule, and that those points would be dealt with in that important part of the measure. Those who, like the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), had gone altogether beyond the mark, had not given constituencies credit for sufficient Party spirit. Even if candidates were not allowed to put up bills and notices, no doubt the constituents themselves would find every means by which the facts to he placarded would be made known. For instance, ordinary shop-windows were not paid for.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

Yes, they are.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Well, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman paid for the use of shop-windows himself, he ought not to do so.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down ought to have known that there was a certain Association, called a Liberal Association, which paid for the placarding of notices of this kind in shop-windows.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

No.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

asked who paid for all the bills exhibited at the Railway Stations during the last Election?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

intimated that it was the Radical Clubs, to which he did not belong.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, that, probably, the right hon. Gentleman was not a member of, or a subscriber to, any of the four Radical Clubs that governed the Liberal Party in Chelsea; but he should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Liberal Association, which was supported by these four Radical Clubs?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, a candidate ought not to be prohibited from paying for advertisements, or from paying for the exhibition of large posters. This matter would be covered in the Schedule. He had said that private individuals were not paid for exhibiting bills in their shop-windows.

MR. GORST

remarked, that, unless this Amendment were accepted, the clause would make it legal to pay people who were not electors for exhibiting not only posters, but also flags and banners. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General considered what a door to corruption that would open? A candidate might not employ an elector to put up notices and posters; but he would be able to employ the whole of his children and his other relatives. This had been done in more cases than one, and had proved to be a most serious form of corruption. Were the children of electors to be allowed to walk about in an electoral district exhibiting flags and placards, of course, being well paid for it? If the clause were accepted as it stood, such employment would be textually legalized. He trusted the Attorney General would consent to the omission of these words. There was ample provision made in the Bill for all legitimate advertising and bill-posting, such as would be done by Messrs. Willing; and if these words were left out they would prevent illegitimate posting.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought it was time the attention of the Committee was called to what would be the consequence of the clause. It would be observed that, although none of these acts would be illegal in the case of a non-elector, yet in the case of a voter, if in a solitary instance a candidate paid for the use of a hoarding to exhibit a bill or a placard, if such a contract could not be brought within the terms of Sub-section 3, the candidate would be disqualified for ever from sitting in Parliament for that constituency. Was ever anything heard like it under the sun? When one came to consider the clauses of the Bill, one was amazed to see how hon. Members on the other side of the House were prepared to annihilate, politically, persons sitting around them for one isolated, trivial act of this kind. It was not necessary, according to the Bill, that this should be committed corruptly, in order to bring down upon the candidate the full force of the punishment under the Bill. One small act, even though it had not been a corrupt practice or bribery, would be fatal to the candidate. If the payment were made to an elector corruptly or uncorruptly on account— Of the use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of any address, bill, notice, flag, or banner according to the terms of Clause 10— ''that candidate shall not be capable of ever being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for the said county or borough, or of being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons during the Parliament for which the election was hold, and if he has been elected his election shall be void. Was not this reductio ad absurdum? As to respect for the law, no one with the slightest grain of common sense could ever entertain the smallest respect for it. What would be the result of all this? The House of Commons was proposing to enact that if a candidate employed a "sandwich-man" to walk up and down Oxford Street with that candidate's name upon it, and with his knowledge and consent, he would for ever be disqualified from sitting for the constituency of 'Westminster. It was a disgrace to the House to be asked to pass such a clause. Such a proposal seemed to him to be more fit for those sham Houses of Commons which were set up in different parts of the country for young men to practice themselves in the art of speaking. There was not the smallest indication in the words of the proposal of the Bill that mala fides was at all necessary in the act which was condemned. The mere fact of a candidate hiring a "sandwich-man," if an elector, to walk up and down Oxford Street would disqualify him for ever from sitting for that constituency. They were now approaching that part of the Bill where the most wretched absurdities were to be enacted in the name of purity of election, and where they were to surround themselves with pitfalls. They ought to allow common sense to prevail upon such a point as this.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he had not kept a record of all the adjectives and adverbs which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had applied to the Bill; but all that the hon. Member had said had nothing to do with the clause. The whole question was whether the words "to an elector" should be retained; and his view was that it would be well to retain the words with the object of preventing many of those things which were mentioned in the section from being done with a corrupt motive. He did not wish to put in the maximum Schedule anything to limit too strictly the sum which could be spent in the way of advertising a candidate; but he did wish to prevent the law from being evaded, and he certainly believed that the insertion of these words, "to an elector," would prevent corrupt practices prevailing. Whilst these words were maintained the clause would allow authority to persons, if they chose, to employ persons who were not electors for the purpose of exhibiting these placards. Of course, if the Committee chose to go beyond the point at which he stopped, it was perfectly competent for them to do so. There was no objection to a "sandwich-man" being employed, and no cognizance would be taken of such employment, provided that person was not an elector, and therefore there was no prospect of getting his vote in return for the payment made for his services. He thought that by retaining these words they would not be affording much opportunity for corruption.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that when the Bill of last year was before them every one who read it at once saw that it would have been almost impossible for a candidate to make known his political opinions by placarding to his constituency. The hon. and learned Gentleman had very much modified the Bill since last year, and very wisely, too, as he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought. He had done two things. He had allowed persons in the habit of advertising—such persons as Scott and Willing—to be paid for putting up posters and advertising a person's candidature—say, in the City of Westminster; whereas, under the old Bill, no one could have been employed for this purpose. Secondly, the constituency would have had great difficulty in finding out what the candidate's opinions were; and, in order to meet the difficulty that no doubt was felt to arise in the case of the old Bill, the Attorney General had put in Sub-section 3. In that part of the old Bill dealing with this subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman had included torches, bands, flags, banners, ribbons, and many other things. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was, he thought, mistaken in what he had said, because the section under discussion only applied to the use of the house, land, building, or premises of an elector. That was to say, the candidate was not to pay him for putting up bills, notices, flags, or banners on these places. [Mr. GORST: No, no !.] If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at Clause 13 he would see that flags. banners, &c., were treated in a manner much different to that which he supposed. The section said— No payment or contract for payment shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election, be made on account of bands, torches, flags, banners, cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction. On the particular point they were discussing the Committee ought to be very careful, because he could not help thinking that the clause was strong enough as it was, and that the words "to an elector" modified the extreme severity that was objected to in the Bill of last year. He trusted these words would be maintained,

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Sheil), as he was of opinion that if it were not adopted they would have to go into the question of the employment of the elector's mother, children, or other relatives. It could not always be said that a voter's relatives were employed and paid for the purpose of purchasing that elector's vote, because the offer might be made to give this employment and this payment if a man would abstain from voting. Also, it might be that the offer of payment to an elector for putting up a bill on his premises might be made if he would abstain from voting.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

asked whether, if these words were taken out, a candidate would not be prevented from undertaking the posting of bills and circulars in the district he wished to represent? Would they not be preventing bill stickers from putting up ordinary notices?

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he thought the remarks of the noble Viscount (Viscount Folkestone) were pertinent to the discussion. This clause was sufficiently stringent for all practical purposes as it stood, and he regretted that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) should have thought it necessary to move an Amendment which would only fetter the legitimate declaration of political opinions, and restrain candidates from making announcements which were absolutely necessary in order to put themselves before the constituencies. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had told them that by the 3rd sub-section of this clause ample provision was made for the posting of advertisements, and that the candidate had permission to employ persons who could do the work in the ordinary course of trade; but he wished to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that any such voter did it at the peril of losing his vote, and that during the election he could only carry on his business if he was prepared to lose his vote for that occasion. That afforded no guarantee at all for the suitable advertisement of an election. He hoped the Amendment would not be carried.

MR. BULWER

said, that, as he understood it, the "professional" sandwich-man, oven though ho were an elector, would be allowed to ply his trade during an election. Well, if a Dissolution were to take place now, and a General Election in a month's time, he would venture to say that there would be an enormous increase in the number of "professional" sandwich-men in the country before the polling day. He did not know that there was any limit as to the time it was necessary for a man to have carried on his trade in order to entitle him to call himself a "professional" sandwich man. At any rate, during the month's interval there would, he should think, be ample opportunity for embracing the sandwich profession or the profession of bill sticking.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, it beloved them to be cautious upon this matter, otherwise they would be making it possible for one side or one organization at an election contest to buy up the only places where bills could be legally posted.

MR. RITCHIE

said, that it seemed to him that while Sub-section 3 provided for exceptions in the case of people whose business it was to exhibit bills, there seemed to be no provision whatever for excepting the people who put up the bills.

MR. LEWIS

asked what part of Subsection 3 would apply to the bill poster? In order that there might be no mistake about it, ho would ask the Committee to allow him to read over Sub-section 3. It said— Provided that where it is the ordinary practice of an elector to allow for payment the use of any house, land, building, or premises for the exhibition of bills and advertisements, or it is the ordinary business of an elector to exhibit for payment of bills and advertisements, a payment to or contract with such elector, if made in the ordinary course of business, shall not be deemed to be an illegal practice within the meaning of this section, but such elector shall be deemed to be employed for reward for the purpose of the election within the meaning of the enactments mentioned in Part Two of the Third Schedule to this Act, and accordingly shall not be entitled to vote, and if he votes his vote shall be void. The services of the bill poster were necessary in some districts, in order to circulate the placards and posters in villages.

MR. GORST

It does not refer to that.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought the duty of the bill poster was to put paste to a bill and stick it up. He believed, with his noble Friend below the Gangway(Viscount Folkestone), that this proposal would prohibit the employment of bill stickers. He did not think the course of the Committee improved as it went on, and he exorcised the option he had of stigmatizing as severe many of these clauses. The Attorney General often repeated that they should not consider the punishment when they were considering the offence. That was the hon. and learned Member's usual advice; but it was not right to split these things up into two parts. The Attorney General would say when they came to punishment—"You have made this an offence and you must punish it;" and in that way the Committee were never able to get an adequate or comprehensive view of the matter. If they left the words in, it would not be necessary for a person to be an elector for the act to be corruptly done.

MR. GORST

said, the clause did not refer to the bill sticker, who was not paid for exhibiting the bills, but for sticking them up. The man who was paid for the exhibition of the bills would be the "sandwich-man," who carried them up and down the streets. The bill sticker only posted them on the walls.

MR. SHEIL

said, he had received enough support to encourage him in going to a Division and taking the sense of the Committee. What he meant the Amendment to apply to was the exhibition of posters and placards. He was quite aware that the Post Office was very much resorted to at election times for distributing bills and circulars; but it was notorious that use was made of trifling services by individuals who happened to be voters, as an indirect means of bribing them. It would be found that the men who were employed were men who either had votes themselves, or who could command votes; and the result was that an enormous sum was spent in printing bills and circulars, which were placed in the hands of individual voters who were paid for circulating them. Of course, the money came out of the pockets of the candidates afterwards; and the practice was resorted to and the expense paid on the supposition that it was a means of gaining votes.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 66: Majority 173.—(Div. List, No. 152.)

MR. H. S. NORTHCOTE

moved, in page 3, line 23, after the words "to an elector," to insert the words "or to the wife, son, or daughter of an elector." He thought payments made to the wife and children of an elector would be payments made to persons under the control of the elector as head of the house. He hoped that something in the nature of this Amendment would commend itself to the Attorney General.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, after the words "to an elector," to insert the words "or to the wife, son, or daughter of an elector."—(Mr. H. S. Northcote.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Exeter, that some Amendment of this kind was needed; but when the hon. Member proposed to classify the relatives of an elector, he was not sufficiently comprehensive. It was the first time in making any legal provision that he had found the mother-in-law was to be excluded, or, as his noble Friend below him (Lord Randolph Churchill) suggested, the deceased wife's sister. What he would respectfully suggest was, that instead of mentioning the wife, son, or daughter, he should make use of the term "relative," which would include the whole. The hon. Gentleman had better make the clause read "to an elector or the family of an elector."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, the sub-section of the clause to which the Amendment applied was directed against the actual employment of an elector, or to payments made to him for unnecessary services. Of course, such payments naturally came within the clause; but when they came to consider the wife, son, or daughter, he thought they would find that there would be considerable difficulty in dealing with such a question. For instance, the son or daughter might be a person 50 years of age, and the daughter might be a married woman, or a widow, and it would be difficult to show how either of them would be under the influence of the voter. Seeing that this degree of affinity did exist, if they were to deal with the son and daughter, ho certainly failed to see why they should not include the brother and sister as well. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. H. S. NORTHCOTE

said, he would not oppose the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he wished to move the Amendments which stood in the name of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). They all applied to Sub-section (b), and were each consequent upon the other. The object of them collectively was to secure the omission of the words "flag or banner" from the sub-section. He thought he was able to give reasons that were sufficient to convince the Committee that it would be of advantage to adopt these Amendments; but he would only remind them of what had already been said by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that the questions of flags and banners would be dealt with later on in Clause 13 of the Bill, which rendered illegal all payments on account of flags, banners, and other marks of distinction, altogether irrespective of whether the flags or banners had been contributed by electors or not. Therefore, nobody could oppose the omission of the words in that section; and he would suggest to the Attorney General that it would be advisable to confine all reference to flags and banners to the 13th clause. He begged to move the first of the Amendments standing in the name of his hon. and learned Friend, and it really carried the rest with it.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, after "bill," insert "or."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That the word or' be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that if it were necessary he could show that there was a slight difference in the enactment of this clause and Clause 13; but he would not take up the time of the Committee by dealing with the matter, as the difference was not a very substantial one. It certainly seemed to him that Clause 13 dealt sufficiently with the question of flags and banners by making their use illegal; and, under those circumstances, he was quite willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

moved, in page 3, line 25, to leave out "flag or banner."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

moved, in page 3, line 26, after "Bill," insert "or."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

moved, in page 3, line 26, to leave out "flag or banner."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LEWIS

rose to move the omission of Sub-section (b).

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that as the words "to an elector" had already been affirmed in the clause, it was hardly competent to move the omission of Sub-section (b).

Question, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

MR. LEWIS

said, that his Amendment really applied to Sub-section (c). The objection he had taken to Subsection (b)—namely, that it was very severe, applied with still greater force to Subsection (c). He therefore begged to move, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (c). The Attorney General had objected, in discussing one part of the Bill, to any reference being made to the Bill as a whole; but, notwithstanding that objection, it was absolutely necessary in this case that he should read Sub-section (c) by the light of Clause 10. Sub-section (a) of Clause 10 enacted that— In the event of the Report of an Election Judge declaring that any illegal practice has been proved to have been committed in reference to such election by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, that candidate shall not be capable of ever being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons for the said county or borough, or of being elected to or sitting in the House of Commons during the Parliament for which the election was held, and if ho has been elected his election shall lie void; and he shall further be subject to the same incapacities as if, at the date of the Report, he had boon convicted of such illegal practice. Worse than that, Sub-section (c) of Clause 6 provided that— Any payment or contract for payment on account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the First Schedule of the Act should be an illegal practice. The candidate was not likely to break the law in that respect wilfully and with his eyes open; but, nevertheless, if he had one committee room too much, no matter whether it had been engaged wilfully and corruptly or not, ho was liable to be found guilty of an illegal practice, all the words being carefully omitted which protected the candidate in regard to bribery or treating. The clause did not say that it must be done corruptly or wilfully; but the mere act of doing it on the part of an agent, even if it had been done by accident or by miscounting the number of committee rooms, made the candidate responsible. There might be 30 polling districts; and if, instead of having 30 committee rooms, there were by accident 31, away went the seat from the unfortunate candidate. He knew that he might as well preach to the winds as attempt to induce the Government to alter the clause; but, nevertheless, he considered it his duty to point out what the result of the clause, as it stood, would be to the candidate. It was not necessary that the act should be done corruptly or wilfully; but the mere fact that it was done, not with- standing that it might be owing to some mistake or blunder, voided the seat. There was no power to make an application to the Court in order to convince the Judge that there had been a mistake. He was quite aware that there was a clause in the Bill later on—Clause 17—which gave power to the High Court and to the Election Court to except an innocent act or omission of a candidate or his agent from being made an illegal practice; but, according to the rule laid down by the Attorney General, he had no right to refer to that clause, as he was not to look at the whole of the clauses of the Bill together. Unless the Committee were determined to place a candidate in terrible jeopardy, they certainly ought to omit this sub-section, seeing that mere inadvertence on the part of the agent of a candidate in renting a committee room beyond the subscribed number might, in the end, unseat the candidate.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. Lewis.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. WHITLEY

trusted that the Attorney General would accept the Amendment, and said, that on behalf of the constituents he represented he had considered it his duty to place an Amendment to a similar effect upon the Paper. It did seem to be a hardship upon the candidate that he should be subjected to the terrors of this clause in consequence of an unauthorized act or mistake committed by an agent. He could quite understand that the general object of the clause was to put down corruption, and that corruption might, in some cases, assume the form of a multiplication of committee rooms; but, at the same time, he thought that the object of the clause would be gained in a much better way by limiting the expenses. He was of opinion that it would not be necessary in every case to have the large number of committee rooms a candidate was entitled to have under the Act; but he thought the best way of meeting the difficulty would be to limit the expenses. It certainly appeared to be a very hard thing to interfere so very much with the details of an election. The object was to deal with corruption; but this clause certainly did not deal with corruption. It was a serious matter, indeed, in a borough with a very large population and some 50,000 or 60,000 electors, to say that the candidate should be deprived of his seat because one or two committee rooms too many had been engaged. He was quite sure the Attorney General really did not mean that, but that what he did mean was to put down corrupt practices and the undue multiplication of committee rooms; which object, however, as he (Mr. Whitley) had already pointed out, would be best secured by limiting the expenses. He was strongly of opinion that they ought not to interfere too much with the details of managing an election when there was a very large constituency to deal with.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),

in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), desired to say that he had not objected to the House discussing a clause of the Bill without reference to other parts of the measure; but he did not think it was necessary to discuss every part of the Bill upon every clause, and he therefore advised his hon. Friend to restrict his observations to one long speech, in which he could explain the nature of his objections, without continually going back again to the same points. "What the Committee was discussing now was whether they ought to restrict a candidate from having more than a certain number of committee rooms. The Committee would be aware that it was a usual and constant mode of corrupting a constituency to go into a district and say, "We want committee rooms," sometimes as many as 300 or 400 being taken. The object of this sub-section was to prevent that from being done, because it was felt to be absolutely necessary that there should be a prohibition against engaging an excessive number of committee rooms. It was important that the Legislature should make a prohibition, and declare a certain act to be improper and illegal. The just and conscientious man would adhere to the law, and it was only the dishonest man who would attempt to obtain an advantage by doing the things he was prohibited from doing, and therefore it might be concluded that he did them from a corrupt motive. Prior to 1881, the dishonest man certainly obtained an advantage; and if these acts were now prohibited as illegal practices, it was necessary that they should see the prohibition properly enforced, or they had better not resort to it at all. It was their duty first to determine the nature of the act they intended to proscribe, and they could define and enforce the punishment afterwards. The question was, whether they were to prohibit the excessive engagement of committee rooms at all? If they did not, and if they virtually said that the candidate might have as many committee rooms as he liked, they might depend upon it the practice would be resorted to of waiting upon voters whose interest they wanted to get, and engaging his rooms as committee rooms, paying what they liked for them, and as a necessary consequence there would be no limit to the expenditure. He therefore thought that it would be bettor to insert in the Bill an absolute prohibition against engaging an excessive number of committee rooms. A mere act of inadvertence would be protected by Clause 17. They would come to the question of punishment shortly. He agreed with many of the observations made, especially those of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), who spoke with a peculiar knowledge of the subject. He (the Attorney General) had done all he could, on Clause 17, to prevent anything like injustice being done, and to prevent punishment following any inadvertence. He shared the wish of the hon. Member for Liverpool, that in a case of inadvertence there should not be so largo a penalty as that which would follow an intentional act.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the prohibition about committee rooms was in last year's Bill; and the expenses of the election were to be parcelled—so much was to be paid for such a thing, and so much for another thing. The Attorney General had now classed all the things together; and in his Bill lie had provided that if a candidate kept within the maximum expenditure, ho could spend the money as he liked. According to the scale which was put in the Schedule, it seemed that the amount of money a man could spend in committee rooms was very little indeed. It must be remembered that no one could hire a committee room except all election agent himself; so that, therefore, the matter was brought nearer the candidate than any other matter. The engagement of committee rooms was to be brought actually home to the election agent. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) did not like to put a candidate in that position; and he could not help thinking that the balance of argument was entirely the other way. They had much better let the committee rooms go, as they had let printing. They might rest assured that no candidate would spend money in committee rooms unless it was absolutely necessary. He should vote for the Amendment.

MR. BULWER

said, he did not think the Attorney General had met the objection that had been raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). The hon. Member had pointed out to the Committee the opening that would be given to corruption in this matter. The Bill allowed a candidate to spend so many hundred pounds upon his election. Now, if a man had nothing but voluntary effort he would require no money at all; and the objection of the hon. Member for Liverpool was this" If you are going to allow a candidate to spend £250—that is, according to your argument, to bribe to that extent—why should he not spend the money either in committee rooms or on agents?" He (Mr. Bulwer) was of opinion that it would be better not to draw any hard-and-fast line. He knew some places—his own constituency, for instance—where a committee room was not at all needed. In that case, he did not see why he should be prohibited from spending the money he was allowed to spend in committee rooms upon an extra agent to look after his interests. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not done justice to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis), when he asked him to make one long speech on the subject instead of a number of little ones. The hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that "Gutta cavat lapidem, non vi, sed sœpe cadendo."

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

trusted the hon. and learned Attorney General would make no uncertain sound in opposition to this proposal. It was proposed that they should declare that a candidate might have as many committee rooms as he liked. It was to be penal to spend a few pounds in such and such a thing; but they were to be allowed to give 100 guineas, if they liked, for the use of committee rooms. Nothing could be more inconsistent. An undue hiring of committee rooms was one of the most flagrant forms of bribery that a candidate could indulge in. It seemed that after what the Committee had lately determined they would be acting with the greatest inconsistency if they adopted this proposal of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). At the last Election there was one small borough where there were only a few hundred electors, but where there wore 13 candidates in the field. The two or three candidates who first arrived in the borough hired all the hotels in the town as committee rooms, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) heard that when the fourth candidate went down he quickly returned, and excused his return by saying that there was no hotel accommodation, and ho intended to go for another county in another part of the country. If that proposal were accepted, any rich candidate who was first in the field would be able to buy up every available space in the town in the name of committee rooms.

MR. LEWIS

said, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connor Power), considering his pretty keen acumen, had not appreciated the Amendment. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, it would be possible for a rich man to pay 100 guineas for an extra committee room out of the £350, the amount of his maximum expenditure. The hon. and learned Member, who was an enthusiastic admirer of the Government—[Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: I admire this Bill]—would not contend that they were not taking the Government at its word. Would anyone suggest that in the maximum scale provided by the Government there was any margin, large or small, which would allow 100 guineas to be paid for an extra committee room? It had always occurred to him (Mr. Lewis) that the way to get the Bill through Committee was to put forward the maximum Schedule, and pass that before doing anything else. When that was done, whether a man had one agent more than another, or an extra committee room, or an extra clerk, was utterly beside the question. The maximum expenditure not being capable of being exceeded, surely it was utterly immaterial how the money was spent, as the amount itself left no opening for corrupt practices. That common-sense view did not seem to have been taken. Why not fix the maximum expenditure, and let a man, if he fancied, have an extra committee room, or an extra agent? Why should not a man spend the money in any way he thought fit?

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he was anxious to give the Committee an illustration bearing upon that matter. The illustration was that of the Sandwich Election, and, of course, was very notorious. Now, in Deal and Sandwich there were 3,000 or 4,000 electors, and anterior to the election everyone who had a public-house received £5 for the use of a committee room. There were some proposals in the Bill which he objected to; but he considered that the proposal now made was eminently a reasonable one, and he should have thought that even the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would have supported it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

desired to point out to the hon. Member for Londonderry that the clause, as it now stood, did afford some protection to the candidate; and it was in the candidate's interest that he (Mr. Balfour) would like to keep the clause unaltered. They all knew that whatever the maximum expenditure was, it was against the interest of the candidate to spend much money on committee rooms. The mere multiplication of committee rooms, except so far as it influenced the people who owned them, was of very little use to the candidate; and, therefore, when a demand was made upon a candidate to hire a room for the purposes of his committee, it would be a protection to the candidate to be able to say to the owner of the room, who it might happen was a very powerful constituent—"I am precluded, by the terms of this Bill, from having more than a certain number of committee rooms." Therefore, if he (Mr. Balfour) voted, as he intended to do, to keep this Bill in its present form, it was not at all on the ground urged opposite, but it was solely in the interest of the candidate, on whom pressure might be urged by some influential member of his constituency to do something which really would be detrimental to his own interest.

MR. R. T. REID

said, that supposing Sub-section (c), which made illegal the payment of money on account of any committee room in excess of the number allowed by the 1st Shedule of the Act were omitted, what was there in the Bill to prevent a Central Association from going down to any constituency, and, by paying out of their own funds, and not out of the funds of the candidate, engaging a large number of committee rooms, and thereby corruptly influencing the constituency?

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the answer to that would be that the moment a candidate, or his agent, went into any one of the committe rooms so engaged that committee room would be considered theirs.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

pointed out that in every constituency there were Conservative and Liberal Associations, and he had very little doubt whatever that these Associations would espouse warmly the candidate who belonged to their Party, although the candidate might not absolutely be connected with them or make them his agents. The Associations would, unquestionably, turn their club rooms into committee rooms. If a candidate entered one of the rooms of a Political Association, turned for the occasion into a committee room, would that be a infringement of the Act? That was a point which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General must consider. That was a point of great importance, and they ought to receive an explanation from the Government.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, that the point raised by the noble Lord was fairly open to an answer from the Attorney General. Political Associations would, undoubtedly, play a very important part in elections for the future. He had not the slightest doubt whatever that electioneering plans would be formed in London and Birmingham, and that all the business of the contests would be done by Central Associations. A Liberal Association, for instance, might have several offices in a constituency. Would those offices be considered a committee room? Would a Conservative club room be considered a committee room? He (Mr. Cowen) knew some Liberal Associations which had an office in every ward in the town. Would those offices be considered committee rooms?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

was understood to say that he hoped the Committee would relieve him from the necessity of settling the matter raised by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) and by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). What were committee rooms, and what were not, ought to be left to the decision of the Judges who would be required to try any Election Petition, and who would have all the facts of the case clearly before them.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that, after what the Attorney General had said, they ought to have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis).

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the question was entirely changed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had said. He had been prepared to support the hon. and learned Gentleman; but now it appeared the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly unable to tell them what would be a committee room and what would not. Indeed, the Attorney General thought it monstrous that they should even ask him whether or not a room hired by a Political Association could or could not be made into a committee room by the fact of its being used by a candidate, and said they must wait for the decision of the Judges; that was to say, they must wait until a certain number of candidates had fallen into the trap prepared for them in that clause. He (Mr. Balfour) supposed that some unfortunate candidates, who might use committee rooms provided by Associations, would find themselves unseated simply because the Attorney General refused to draw his Bill in a proper and straightforward manner. He (Mr. Balfour) now hoped the Committee would throw out the subsection, or continue the discussion until the Attorney General was prepared to give them a satisfactory answer.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, it had been stated that Associations might go down to constituencies, hire rooms, and thus corrupt those constituencies. To that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) replied that the very moment a candidate, or his agent, entered a room hired by such an Association the room would become the candidate's, and he would be liable for the consequences.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that what he had stated was that if a candidate, or his agent, used the rooms as committee rooms, they would be regarded as their own rooms.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

said, that if the Association came down with the object of corrupting a constituency and gaining votes, it would only be necessary for the candidates and their agents to abstain from going to the rooms and from using them as committee rooms; the voter owning the rooms would be influenced, but would be able to vote with impunity, and no punishment would accrue to anyone.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, he thought it would be well to report Progress, in order to admit of a proper explanation of the intentions of the Government respecting the hiring of rooms by Societies. Agreeing, as he did, with his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), he was particularly anxious to have this matter cleared up. It was a most serious matter, and ought not to treated lightly. There was nothing so uncertain as the law, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General knew perfectly well that it was quite impossible to predict what the judgment of any Judge would be upon any particular point. It was highly necessary that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would not afford the required information now, he should undertake to do so hereafter. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) did not believe the Bill would do any good to anybody. It was a mere waste of time to discuss it, and the consideration of the measure was occupying time which could be devoted to far more important subjects. At all events, if they were to spend time in the consideration of the Bill, let them come to something which was clear and definite.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that this question had been raised quite incidentally and accidentally by a strong supporter of the Bill and a strong supporter of the Government—namely, the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid), a Gentleman who possessed an acute legal mind, and who had asked the question of the hon. and learned Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, treated the question with disdain, as, in fact, he treated every question, unless it were backed up by a large number of Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rushed in the breach and answered the question in a most positive manner; and certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman was right in his answer, the sub-section must be amended. There was another point he (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished to put to the Committee before this clause was disposed of. The clause, as it stood, provided that "no payment or contract for payment shall, for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate;" and under it, they might now raise the whole question of the Political Associations. Political Associations were founded for the purpose of promoting the election of candidates. How did the clause bear upon the annual rent of the offices of Associations? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented. If the Attorney General, instead of shaking his head, would speak openly and clearly, he would save a great waste of time. Political Associations, as a rule, had magnificent offices, and as candidates wore not allowed to take more than a certain number of rooms, could the Attorney General answer a plain and simple question—namely, How did the clause bear upon the action of Political Associations in constituencies with respect of their occupation of temporary committee rooms for election purposes, and with respect to their position of permanent committee rooms? Another question he wished to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman was, what would be the exact position of the candidate if he, either for the purpose of his election or for influencing voters or ascertaining his chance of election, frequented those committee rooms or offices, and had interviews with electors, or with the members of the Association? Surely, it could not be called legislation to leave questions of that kind undefined. The Government were bound to give an answer as to what was the law on this question, and he hoped the Committee would not allow the Bill to go further until it received a proper answer.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL))

said, it would never have occurred to the noble Lord that there was any difficulty in this matter had it not been for the observations made by the hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid). The noble Lord was in error in saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman put a question to the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman simply said it in argument, and did not put it in the form of a question. He (the Solicitor General) did not think there was really any difficulty in the question that had been raised. It must be borne in mind that they were dealing with different things, and if they mixed them up they would create many difficulties. They were dealing with the question of the payment on account of committee rooms hired for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: By anyone.] Certainly, by anyone. The hon. and learned Member for Hereford (Mr. Reid) pointed to the possibility of a private individual or an Association hiring a committee room for the purpose of promoting the interests of a particular candidate. A totally different question was the position of the candidate himself, who was only liable for what he did himself, or what he adopted as his own action. When they were asked to define all the facts which would make out a case of a man adopting, say, a committee room as his own, they might spend a whole day and yet not define such a case. The candidate in such a case was, of course, as responsible as if he had taken the room himself, and therefore he did not think there was any difficulty in meeting a particular instance; but that was a different thing from going into an exhaustive statement of everything that a person might do. He thought common sense would give them a more satisfactory answer to any particular case; but, as he had said, he was willing to prohibit and make illegal the hiring of committee rooms beyond the specified number.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he thought the argument of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour), instead of being a reason why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) should be adopted, was really a conclusive argument against it. It seemed to him that if they were to interrupt this discussion when anybody wished to raise a question of interpretation, or if the Attorney General or Solicitor General were to be called upon to express an opinion upon a hypothetical state of facts, they would never get through the Bill. Yet that was what the Committee were required to do. It was like calling upon the Chairman or Speaker to determine a point of Order which had not arisen, and that seemed to him to be an irregular mode of discussion. The difficulty started by the hon. Member for Hertford was purely imaginary. The Committee had already declared, in a portion of the clause which had been passed, that any payment or contract for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate, should be illegal, &c. Such a contract must be made within the limits of the regulations here set down, whether by an Association, or by two or three persons, or by the agent of a candidate. Nothing could be clearer than the language of the clause so far as they had gone; but they would have to put themselves in an imaginative frame of mind in order to deal with the imaginations of the hon. Member. Ho would try the experiment. There were in all large towns recognized officials belonging to the different political parties. Surely it was not to be said that if a Conservative or Liberal Member walked into a Political Club in Manchester, for instance, he was using the club as a committee room, and that the club was to be added to the number of his committee rooms, and he was to be charged with illegal practices because he had gone into the club. They might go on to imagine all kinds of cases of that nature, but it would not help them in this discussion. He would imagine again that the Conservatives or the Liberals were not content with the accommodation in their clubs, and that for the purpose of promoting the election of their candidates they hired other rooms—the moment they hired committee rooms distinctly to promote the election of a candidate they came within the scope of the clause to which the Committee had already agreed. That would then be a payment, or contract for payment, for the purpose of promoting an election. How did the Committee now stand? One would imagine that the hon. Member for Londonderry, and those who supported him, were in favour of restricting the privilege of a candidate in] the choice of committee rooms; but the fact was, that they wanted to do away with all restrictions, and the argument was twisted from one side to the other until the Government were made to appear, for the purpose of debate, as desiring to extend the privileges of the candidate in this respect, while hon. Members opposite to them appeared as desiring to restrict those privileges. He did not see that any practical purpose would be achieved by a discussion on that principle. So far as they had gone they had expressed the purpose of the Committee in clear and intelligible language, and in order to be consistent they had only to insert Subsection (c), which would make the clause from beginning to end read with perfect consistency. If that were not so, he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen who had hitherto carried on this examination of hypothetical cases to come to the real issue in the matter and see what could be done.

MR. RITCHIE

said, there were two separate questions. One was, whether if a Caucus or a Political Association took rooms in a borough the candidate should be held personally responsible if he went into those rooms? The other was, whether the Committee were going to restrict a candidate to the number of committee rooms he should have, and yet allow a Caucus or a Political Association to go into a borough and take any number of rooms which they might call offices? He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that those rooms would come under the definition of committee rooms. In order to have a committee room there must be a committee, and if a Caucus sent down a number of people to take offices for any purpose they thought proper they would have no committee, but yet they would be working in the interest of a particular candidate. To allow that, while restricting the candidate, was monstrous under the Bill as it stood. There was nothing to prohibit this being done; and, therefore, he thought the Attorney General ought to agree to insert some simple words defining a committee room, and then it would be understood that no room was to be hired by any Organization except the number of rooms laid down in the Bill as committee rooms.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he thought he could meet the case just put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie). It had been decided, in very many cases, that it was not necessary that there should be a committee to con- stitute a committee room. There might be offices which would practically be committee rooms, and they would clearly come under the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, it seemed to him that that statement made the Bill no better. Anything more unreasonable than the attitude of the Government, except the view of the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he had never experienced. The hon. and learned Member appeared to think it criminal to put forward hypothetical cases; but it seemed to him that the only way iH which the operation of the law could be decided was by hypothetical cases. The-Solicitor General had shown, with a certain amount of force, that the candidate himself would probably not suffer under this clause. That might or might not be the case; but he wished to know whether a Caucus or Political Association would come under the clause? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that a committee was not necessary to constitute a committee room; but would the room of a Political Organization be a committee room or not, supposing the room to be used, as it certainly would be, for the promotion of a particular candidate whose politics agreed with the Organization? The candidate went into a borough, and on his own behalf hired as many committee rooms as the Act would permit; but in addition to this there would, unquestionably, be the office of the various Political Organizations in the borough. These would be, unquestionably, for the purpose of promoting an election, and, of course, in excess of the number allowed by the Act. Would they constitute an offence under the Act; and, if so, did the Attorney General mean to punish such an act with the severity which the Bill at present proposed? Did he mean to say that an election would be voided because, in addition to the committee rooms hired by the candidate, there were these permanent offices of the local Associations? If that was a hypothesis, so visionary and wide that it was unreasonable to ask the Government to contemplate it, he did not see how they could properly carry on the discussion at all. The Attorney General must see that they could not consent to keep this proposal in the Bill until they had had a clear statement from the Government as to whether such rooms were to be committee rooms within the meaning of the Act or not.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, there were cases perfectly well known in which there were several Clubs in the town, and an Association with a permanent room in every ward and every part of the town. Where those to be considered committee rooms or not? If the candidate did not go into them, the electors did, and the Association took part in the election; consequently, the members of the Association became agents of the candidate. If, including the number of rooms which the candidate took himself with these permanent rooms, the total allowed by the Bill was exceeded, the candidate apparently would be held responsible. He spoke with some feeling upon this subject, because a misguided Election Committee of this House once turned him out of the House on the ground that he had too many committee rooms.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought that if anything would justify his objection it was this discussion, because, even after the speeches of both Law Officers of the Crown, the Committee was still left in doubt as to what was the meaning of a committee room, and what was likely to be the interpretation by the Judges of that term. Suppose a candidate did what most candidates, or most hon. Members, at present did—namely, subscribe to a Registration Society in a borough, and suppose that Society had three or four officers or sub-officers, was there the slightest doubt that during the election those rooms would be used by voters for the purpose of the election? They would go to see if their names were on the register, and where they were to vote, and so on. How would it be possible for a candidate to escape responsibility unless there was some definition in the clause as to which was payment, or contract for payment, for the purposes of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at an election on account of committee rooms in excess of the number prescribed by the Bill? What need was there for surrounding candidates with all these dangerous problems and pitfalls, when there was ample opportunity of preserving purity of election by fixing the maximum expenditure? The Government insisted that the Committee must go into all these details; and then, when they were asked to give a definition of a committee room, they said—"Leave it to the Election Judge." What did that mean? That meant waiting until some Members were unseated and prohibited from sitting for the same constituencies ever again. That was a very callous way of treating this very serious question, and it was wholly unnecessary, because they had only to fix the maximum to avoid all these difficulties.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he should be very happy to answer any question; but there was great danger in answering questions based on hypothetical facts. It appeared to him that if an Association were formed in a borough, not for the purpose of a particular election, but for carrying on the interests of a political party, the rooms of that Association would not have any relation to the candidate, and the use of the rooms during an election would not be payment, or contract for payment, for the purpose of procuring an election. Rooms taken in that way by an Association would not be committee rooms, more than would the house of a resident in the borough be a committee room if it were allowed to be used during an election. On the other hand, if an Association went down to a borough at an election time and took rooms, that step would come under the clause, because the rooms would be for the purpose of promoting a particular candidature. Was not this a question of degree? How were they to define it and draw a hard-and-fast line, and say in one case the improper use should come under the clause and in another it should not?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, lie did not wish to delay this question unnecessarily. At the same time, he saw grave danger surrounding the unfortunate candidate of the future, especially through the enthusiasm of some of his supporters. As he understood the clause of the Bill, a candidate who had got the full number of rooms to which he was entitled would be liable, on account of the zeal of his supporters, for the use of any room in excess of the number specified. He thought it would be hard upon a candidate if an election was declared void through the act of supporters of that kind, who practically became agents for his election.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he thought the limitation would be no use at all, because there were hundreds of ways of evading it.

MR. BOORD

suggested that the Attorney General should insert words in the Definition Clause to explain what was meant by a committee room.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER

said, he thought the arguments advanced all led to more stringent provisions. If it were necessary, in the opinion of some hon. Members, that an Association should be fettered as well as a candidate, they had better have a provision to that effect; but they were not now discussing the action of Associations. They were discussing what payment, or contract for payment, should be legitimate under certain circumstances. But if it wore necessary to fetter voluntary efforts of Associations, that was a different question altogether; and hon. Members were pushing this argument so far that when the Government had carried this clause they would have to frame other clauses forbidding Associations to place their offices at the disposal of a particular candidate. But where were they to stop? Everybody would be fettered all around if the arguments were pushed to their natural conclusion. But he apprehended that that was the very last thing which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) desired. That being so, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the rejection of Subsection (c). The point before the Committee at present was, whether Subsection (c) should not stand? In order to arrive at a confident opinion on the subject they ought to read the clause with the sub-section, and then see how it stood; and then read it with the subsection loft out, and see how it then stood. By reading the clause with the sub-section in, the clause would read more consistently with the determination at which the Committee had already arrived; but if it were necessary to go further than the clause contemplated, and as the arguments of hon. Members indicated, then they must have a new clause dealing with the actions of Associations; and he was just as willing to prevent bribery and corruption by Associations as by candidates. But there was no proposal of that kind before the Committee, and until there was he should vote against the Amendment.

MR. BULWER

said, he could not agree that it was unreasonable for hon. Members, when they were asked to say that a certain sum of money should not be spent in hiring committee rooms, to desire to know what a committee room was. That question was very properly put to the Law Officers; and he thought they might have given, not an exhaustive answer, but an answer to ono specific question. If there was a political Association in a borough and half-a-dozen different rooms where the members met for political purposes, and those rooms were used by the candidate for election purposes, would those rooms come within the section? That was a very proper question; but what was the answer? The answer of the Attorney General was that if these rooms were hired by annual payment by the Association, and were put at the disposal of the candidate during an election without payment by or from him, they would not be committee rooms, because they would come within the definition of voluntary effort.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I did not say that. I said there would be no payment, or contract for payment, for the election.

MR. BULWER

ventured to differ from the Attorney General, and to hold that there would be payment, and contract for payment, by a political Party for political purposes—one of which was the return of the candidate at the election—to the person who owned the house. He did not think the Committee were at present very much enlightened; and ho agreed with hon. Members that they had better leave the clause out, if such a case as had been mentioned were not to come within it, because they might drive a coach and twelve through a sub-section like this, which would allow a political Association to hire a room in a house, and place it at the disposal of the candidate with impunity, because, forsooth, there was no payment, or contract for payment, for that election in particular.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, the subsection called upon a candidate to do what the Attorney General distinctly said the candidate should not do if he wished to avoid illegal practices. The Attorney General held that if other people than the candidate were to hire rooms to assist in the election that was not to be prevented. Take the case of a county election. In every village there was a committee room during the election. Under this Bill a candidate would have to limit the number of committee rooms as fixed by the Bill. But many villages would not do with that number, and they would club together and pay for committee rooms, and yet the Attorney General would hold that they were to be considered committee rooms and forbidden. Because such rooms were hired to promote his candidature, how was a candidate to be made liable for illegal practices? That was the position in which the Attorney General put the Committee—calling upon the candidate to do what the Attorney General said ho could not do.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was hard to be misrepresented. He had never said that at all. There was nothing in the Bill to the effect suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought it would be convenient if the Attorney General would give a more specific definition of what ho meant to provide against as the clause stood. The definition was— For the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate at any election; therefore, a committee room, which was maintained for the purpose of, or with a view to, an election, might be construed as coming under the clause. That, however, he understood, was not what the Attorney General intended; and he would suggest after the words "committee room" the insertion of the words "for the purposes of an election." That would distinctly connect the committee room with the particular election, and would prevent difficulty in the interpretation of the clause.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, ho wished to know, if an Association of a permanent character in a constituency was to have power to keep open a committee room during an election time as well as at other times, how was a candidate, who was to be restricted by this Bill in the number of his committee rooms, to prevent the action of the Association? The Bill was designed for the purpose of correcting and restraining the action of injudicious or unprincipled friends of a candidate, and to prevent their spending money on a particular occasion; but there should be some cover to the application of the principle to a particular individual, and it should be made unlawful for a chronic organization in a constituency to do that particular thing by a number of people which was prohibited on the part of ono individual. If the Attorney General would give some indication that he would proceed in the direction of checking the action of an organization, whether chronic or occasional, that would be satisfactory. If he would make the law stronger against chronic organizations acting on behalf of a particular candidate he should be happy to support him.

MR. SALT

said, he thought ono or two words would probably meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and also, to a great extent, the views of the Committee. Ho thought this sub-section, except for one particular purpose, was almost unnecessary in the Act. It seemed to him that it touched a question quite outside the Schedule, which referred to the expense to which a candidate was limited. The sub-section really dealt with another matter, and that was the possibility of some person or organization taking a number of committee rooms without the knowledge or consent of the candidate; and then arose the question whether, under these circumstances, the candidate himself would in any way be injured? It was not intended that the candidate should be injured if such an organization was carried on contrary to his wishes and consent. That he took to be the intention of the Attorney General. Therefore, he thought if they introduced some words into this sub-section, making it clear that the sub-section dealt with that particular offence outside the action of the candidate, and only that offence, the Committee would be satisfied. If the subsection could be enlarged by some words saying that no committee room should, under any circumstances, be taken for the purpose of any election, except by the actual consent or action either of the candidate himself or the authorized agent, the matter would be tolerably clear, because any person who took such action would directly bring himself under the imputation of illegal practices; while, on the other hand, a candidate would be free, because he would be able to show that lie had given no authority for such action.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he would make one more attempt to meet hon. Members. There was nothing in the Act to make a candidate liable for any act, unless it was done expressly by himself or his agent. The hon. Member (Mr. Salt) had put the case where, without the knowledge of the candidate, a person took committee rooms. It was not intended to make the candidate liable in such a case; and a reference to Clause 10, Sub-section 1, would show that the candidate must be guilty, by himself or his agents, of illegal practices, and that any action was with the knowledge and consent of the candidate.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that practically conceded the point raised on that (the Opposition) side of the House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the Attorney General's view was that the candidate was not to be held responsible for acts not authorized by himself or his agent; but he himself wished to carry the principle of personation a little further, and to make the person who committed such actions more distinctly liable to the penalties of the Bill.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

suggested the desirability of some way or other defining what an agent was. An election could not be worked by one paid election agent, and there must be volunteers.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is no reference to election agents in Sub-section (c).

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

said, what he meant was, that if they had some provision as to who might take a committee room and who might not, the difficulty would be removed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the Attorney General ought to be more careful in this matter. One of his (the Attorney General's) own Colleagues, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), having been unseated for corrupt practices at Chester, managed, by an arrangement which came very near a corrupt practice, to get returned for another borough. Why was the right hon. Gentleman unseated for Chester? Because, in the opinion of the Judge, he had allowed a Liberal Association to become his agents. That might happen again. Under this Bill the penalties were so strict that it would be advisable for a candidate to have nothing to do with an Association. If a candidate made use of an Association every one of the members became his agent, and he would be landed in ono of the pitfalls of this Bill. But if, in order to keep clear of an Association, a candidate had only his own committee room, the Association also, to keep clear of him, would have other committee rooms and offices. There were certain matters connected with elections upon which a candidate must consult local Associations and local persons. They were the only people who understood and attended to registration. On all questions connected with an election a candidate must be in frequent communication with those persons; so that, although he might keep clear of the committee rooms of the Association, still those communications would go on to a considerable extent. Was that a use of the offices of an Association which would bring the can date under this Bill? Then there was another point in the interest of the Associations themselves. Suppose they took committee rooms as well as the candidate, and that was declared by the Judge to be illegal, every one of the persons engaged in such a proceeding would become liable to a penalty of £100, and incapacitated to vote for five years. For that reason they should be extremely careful in this Bill to point out how and upon whom such a liability would fall. Everything that had fallen from the Attorney General had studiously avoided making that matter clear. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): The noble Lord was absent when I gave my answer.] Ho had certainly listened to two explanations, and did not expect a third. As to one of the explanations, the Attorney General seemed to exercise all his ingenuity to avoid giving a clear answer to a plain question. In the interest of Liberal and Conservative Associations and candidates it was necessary to make it clear who would be liable to penalties.

MR. ECROYD

said, the Attorney General had clearly explained one of the two difficulties felt in regard to this matter; but the other he had not so clearly solved. It was quite understood that a candidate was strictly limited in regard to the number of committee rooms which he might engage by himself or his agent; but then a candidate might be merely the Representative of some central Association at a distance, and in that case it would not be the slightest use to place a limit upon what he might do directly, if ho were not limited as to what he might do indirectly. The Association of which he was a Representative might maintain permanently, through affiliated Associations, at an expense of £500 or £1,000 a-year in the borough in question, a number of offices which would practically be committee rooms; and the expense of those rooms, although excluded from the purview of the Act, might make elections in reality more expensive than they had ever been. He wished to know whether it would not be possible for au Association, acting in this manner in the interest of such a candidate, virtually to increase the candidate's committee rooms for the purpose of his election?

MR. MACFARLANE

said, the difficulties under which candidates in future would labour by this Bill had been so often referred to that he did not propose to discuss them, except to make a suggestion for future candidates. He would recommend any future candidate to place himself under the instructions of Mr. Howard Vincent, and then go to a borough, have no committee, take no committee room, appoint no agent, have no supporter, devote himself to watching the other candidate, and then petition the House for the other candidate's seat. A Petition against the return of a candidate would be certain to succeed. There were so many pitfalls in the Bill that it would be impossible to avoid all of them.

MR. CALLAN

said, he wished to know from the Attorney General what constituted a committee room? He had had some little experience in elections, and he would give an illustration of what he meant. Meetings of the county electors were generally held in a large room in some town, for which purpose the place was hired temporarily. Probably it would only be hired for one day for a meeting of the county electors, and there would be an ante-room for the clerks, with a list of voters, who would be engaged in making the usual arrangements for an election. Even that room was occupied only for two days during the progress of a county election. There was another room where the responsible committee of the candidate met, and it was there that the real business was done. That room was engaged at the beginning of an election and held by the candidate all through. It was what was generally known as a committee room, and as a room of call for all the friends of the candidate. If that was what was meant by the term "committee room," then it was only fair that there should only be one in the district. What he wanted to know was, whether, if he engaged a room temporarily, in order to meet and address some 400 or 500 electors, was that to be considered a committee room? Or, on the day of election, having what was called a "tally room" near the polling place, where the electors wont and gave information, was that a committee room? He had always felt himself to be at liberty, on the clay of the polling, to engage more than one room; but all throughout the election he had only one room. Was he to be precluded from hiring a large room for the purpose of addressing 300 or 400 electors, and a tally room to which the voters could go and receive their cards before going to vote? If so, then he contended that the only way for a candidate to make himself safe and secure was to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane). He trusted the Attorney General would condescend—although he did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman would condescend to a mere Irish Member—to state what it was that constituted a committee room?

MR. TOMLINSON

asked whether, in the event of a house being taken for the purposes of an election, each room in it would constitute a separate committee room?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 122: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 153.)

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

moved, at the end of the sub-section, to add the following words:— Any person who shall lend his own carriage, or hire or provide other carriages to convey voters to or from the poll shall be guilty of an illegal practice, but this shall not prevent any person using his own carriage for the conveyance of himself and any other person in company with him to vote. The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Attorney General had more than once in the course of the discussion asked Members of the Committee not to repeat arguments which had already been stated; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed a natural desire that time should not be unnecessarily wasted in discussing the same points over and over again. Ho would endeavour to comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and not repeat arguments which had already been adduced. The question of conveying voters to the poll was discussed at considerable length last night; and the Committee arrived at the decision that the candidate should not be permitted to hire carriages for the conveyance of voters to the poll. What he wished to do by the present Amendment was to give that decision a logical sequence. He thought the Attorney General had proved, as far as he was concerned, that he was sincere in regard to the main object of the Bill—namely, the reduction of the cost of elections, so as to afford to men of moderate means an opportunity of finding their way into the House of Commons. That being one of the main objects of the Bill, he believed that the provisions of this clause, as they now stood, would have the very opposite effect to that which the Attorney General intended they should have, because they would interpose a barrier in the way of the man of moderate means rather than help him. In the event of a man of moderate means contesting the representation of a constituency with a rich man, the latter, if not able to hire carriages himself, would be able to utilize the carriages of his friends. The man of moderate means, therefore, would be placed in a disadvantageous position if the clause were passed in its present shape, because he would be prohibited from hiring carriages, and his friends and supporters would not be in a position to supply them; and, consequently, he would be debarred from their use altogether. That would be a distinct disadvantage, which the man of moderate means would be placed under. In discussing the Bill he presumed they were to discuss it from their own knowledge, and to illustrate it by their own experience. He knew that a largo manufacturer or a colliery owner not only possessed conveyances of his own, but others which he used in his business; and a candidate representing such interests would be able to obtain the use of conveyances to any extent, and in that way to swamp the man of moderate means. It was with a view of preventing a circumstance of that kind that ho submitted the Amendment. It was said last night that it would be ridiculous to attempt to prohibit a man from using his own carriage in going to the poll. He had never had any idea of prohibiting that. A man would necessarily be allowed to use his own carriage; but that was not the point at issue. They all knew that before an election took place — just before the polling day was fixed—circulars were issued to the friends of the candidate all round, asking them how much carriage accommodation they could supply. The request was generally couched in this way—"How many carriages could you afford to place at the disposal of the candidate on the polling day?" The consequence was that one person would offer to supply 10, others two, three, or four; and it was against that practice that the Amendment was aimed. The Attorney General, or the Committee, might say that this was an interference with the liberty of the voter, and of the candidate. Of course, it was an interference with the individual liberty of the candidate and of the voter; but they had interfered very largely with personal liberty already. Their work was to interfere with personal liberty; and never had there been a Parliament which had interfered more with personal liberty than the present one, and in a way that was never before dreamt of by legislation. They had already interfered to prevent the candidate from giving reasonable refreshment to his friends on the day of election; they had carried out that and many other points against the individual liberty of the candidate; and when he asked in this Amendment to prevent a person from lending his own carriage, or hiring other carriages, to convey voters to the poll, by providing that if he did so he should be guilty of an illegal practice, he was only going a very little step further than the Bill went already; and he was, in reality, giving the decision arrived at yesterday a logical sequence. Without further remarks, he would move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 28, after the word "Act," to insert the words:—"Any person who shall lend his own carriage, or hire or provide other carriages to convey voters to or from the poll shall be guilty of an illegal practice, but this shall not prevent any person using his own carriage for the conveyance of himself and any other person in company with him to vote."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, his hon. Friend had stated that he would use no argument which had been already used in support of his Amendment, and he was bound to say that his hon. Friend had kept his promise. He (the Attorney General) thought he fully understood the views of his hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who had expressed similar views upon this subject. He was bound to say that, to some extent, he shared the opinions of his hon. Friends; but, at the same time, it was necessary to look at the question practically, and to consider what the result would be of adopting the Amendment. The prohibition to convey voters to the poll in carriages was, no doubt, a comparatively small matter; but in some constituencies it had been converted into a corrupt practice. He did not think it would be practised to a very large extent in many constituencies; but it certainly might be done in a form which would constitute it a corrupt practice. The Committee ought to consider the effect upon two different candidates. One person might be able to pay for the hire of carriages and the other might not;, and, therefore, this prohibition was mainly intended to check excessive expenditure. When they recollected what the cost of a contested election was, every one of them would be glad to see the expenditure diminished by taking off the expense of conveying voters to the poll. He was very much afraid that hon. Members had hitherto been in the habit not only of paying large sums for what they got, but also for what they did not get. Therefore, the evil to be dealt with was the question of expenditure. There could be no absolute corruption in the employment of a carriage; and the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowen) did not attack that proposition, because it said that the voter might go to the poll in his own carriage, and that he might go in a carriage that was not his own, providing that the owner of the carriage which conveyed him was himself going to the poll to vote. All that would be legal under the Amendment. All that the hon. Member asked was that the voter should go in the same carriage with the owner of it. [Mr. JOSEPH COWEN: And vote.] Yes; and vote. He presumed his hon. Friend was not prepared to say that such persons should vote early and often; but what the Amendment did say was that it should be perfectly permissible for the owner of a carriage to take another person with him to the polling booth to vote. Now, the Committee would fully understand who that person would be. It would not be the man whose vote was known, but the doubtful voter — ho thought he heard some hon. Member "the shaky voter." He fancied he could see his hon. Friend arguing with a man of that kind in his own carriage all the way to the poll. The acceptance of the Amendment would lead to serious difficulties; it might be used as a weapon to give great advantage to one particular candidate. It would be almost impossible to prevent the friends of a candidate from voluntarily supplying his Party with carriages. It would be as difficult to stop voluntary effort of that kind, from whatever source it came, as to stop one man from using his eloquence, or another writing able letters to the newspapers on behalf of a favourite candidate. It was all voluntary effort; but there was no doubt that the person on whose behalf this voluntary effort was used had a great advantage. In the same way, he admitted the advantage to be derived from the use of carriages voluntarily lent, and it was said that it would be of more advantage to one Party than to another, because one candidate would have more carriages at his disposal than another; but, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that a good many of the urban voters would not wish to be carried to the poll at all, and would entertain rather a hostile view than otherwise of this kind of provision. He hoped they would come to a speedy conclusion upon this matter. He could not, however, think of accepting this Amendment.

MR. LEAKE

said, before they went to a Division, the Committee would, per- haps, permit him, as the Representative of a large constituency—South - East Lancashire — deeply interested in the matter, to offer a few observations. The Committee, on both sides the House, had resolutely set itself to check corruption and to abate expense. It had already determined that no carriages should be hired for the purpose of conveying voters to the poll; and they were now engaged in considering what the effect would be if private carriages were used on election days. The terms of the Amendment which he had put on the Paper would show that he was very much in sympathy with his hon. Friend (Mr. Cowen), although his proposition did not impose quite so rigorous a prohibition as that of his hon. Friend. They had to look at the question of the conveyance of voters from two aspects—firstly, as a bribe—["No!"]—it was a minor aspect, no doubt, but it was one from which the question ought to be viewed; for if a man was promised that he should ride in a private carriage, the promise could fairly be considered a bribe; indeed, ho thought that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had expressed his dissent (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) offered his carriage to an elector, he would do so in the expectation that the man would be influenced thereby. Again, they had to look at the matter from the pounds, shillings, and pence point of view. When an effort was made, on the part of an election committee, to obtain private carriages, the opposite side was immediately greatly concerned; it supposed that something was being done which would be fatal to its chances of success. One Party might not be able to command so many carriages as the other; and there came, therefore, a great temptation at the hour of conflict to induce those carriages to come to their side, which did not voluntarily come. There was no man ignorant enough in that Assembly not to understand how the thing was done. They knew perfectly well that if one Party saw a large number of carriages employed on the other, it would move heaven and earth, and probably something worse, to obtain a counterbalancing advantage. Now, if they could prevent the employment, on the day of election, of anything in the shape of a private carriage, limiting the Use of a carriage to its loan by one friend to another, and to that friend only, they would, he believed, have purer elections, and quieter elections; they would have the pure spirit of political feeling in the country exhibited, and that only. At present, it was undoubtedly true that an election was won by energy and determination; the Party which was most energetic, most determined, and strongest in conviction, won, but with meaner aids and influence brought into the field, either corruptly or otherwise. He would remove the temptation to use these meaner influences. Therefore, whilst not having proposed anything so strong as the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowen), he should go with him into the Lobby on this occasion.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he wished the Committee seriously to consider the question which was now before it. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General seemed to think there was a difficulty in interfering in this matter, because it was so kind and manly on the part of one elector to offer his conveyance for the use of another elector. It was not intended by this Bill to interfere with a kind act; but the very principle of the Bill was to interfere with many actions which might be kind, but which, nevertheless, might be corrupt. It was quite evident that a man might entertain a friend at the time of an election, and he might do it under circumstances which would bring him under the provisions against treating. They held that they would not allow anything of the kind. He put it to the Attorney General, did he not know that under this Bill, as it at present stood, any person might purchase additional carriages for use during a given period? They would become his own carriages; and, in fact, he saw no reason, under the Bill, why it should not be done. It was a very serious point, and worthy the consideration of the Committee; because if they wished to put down corruption they must take care not to leave a loophole which would tend to give opportunities for corruption. They had to deal with the fact that a certain number of persons owned private carriages or other conveyance; and those persons clearly under the Bill would place their carriages or conveyances at the disposal of the Committee for the purpose of bringing up voters without receiving payment. He, however, contended that persons could purchase carriages, that they could become owners of carriages, for the express purposes of an election, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent it. Yesterday, he gave an instance that came within his own experience. In the borough of Warrington, in 1868, his election was seriously imperilled by the fact that a number of conveyances were used by his opponents, conveyances which were lent for the purpose of the election. The Committee must remember that, with regard to all elections, they had to deal with rich people—people owning carriages; and it seemed to him that if the Government were really in earnest to put a stop to the conveyance of voters, they must put a stop to the employment of private carriages.

VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE

rose amidst cries of "Divide!" He said, he thought he was entitled to say a few words on this matter, considering that all the talk on the clause had come from the opposite side of the House. He was perfectly ready, when the Motion was first put from the Chair, to go to a Division; but since then arguments had been used which certainly demanded an answer. The hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Leake) did not seem to have a very grand idea of the independence of voters; because he considered, and he told the Committee so, that the mere fact of riding in a gentleman's cariage was likely to influence the vote of an elector. Such was not his (Viscount Folkestone's) opinion; indeed, he considered the assertion of the hon. Gentleman perfectly unnecessary. He believed that electors, no matter to which Party they belonged, were sufficiently independent not to be influenced by the fact of being conveyed to the poll in someone's private carriage. They might take a horse to the water, but they could not make him drink; they might take a voter to the poll, but they could not make him veto which way they liked. A man would vote which way he pleased; and, what was more, it was impossible to ascertain how he did vote, unless he himself vouchsafed the information. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) might take a voter to the poll in his carriage, and unless they had found the moans in Newcastle of breaking through the secrecy of the ballot, the hon. Gentleman could not know how that voter was going to vote. It was the experience of a great number of Members in the House that they had conveyed a number of voters to the poll, and that it was very likely as many as one-third of those voters so conveyed had voted against them. The whole question was ridiculous, because anybody who was sufficiently popular would be able to get a conveyance to the poll if he required it.

MR. CALLAN,

who also rose amidst cries of "Divide!" said, he happened to have constituents as well as the hon. Gentlemen who were howling on the other side of the House, and he had a right to state what he believed was essential for his constituents. Now, the county he represented—Louth—was very mountainous; and in one polling district, out of 190 voters and upwards, there were a great many who had no vehicles whatever, and 50 of them resided more than five or six miles from the polling station. Some of them were 90 years of age; and how could they be expected to go to the poll if a candidate was prohibited to provide a vehicle for the use of such voter? Were the Committee going to prohibit a neighbour, or a friend, or a candidate's friend, sending their own private carriage for the use of a particular voter? If they did it would be a monstrous injustice. To call upon some men to walk four or five miles, perhaps in inclement weather, to vote was to practically disenfranchise them. Some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would have a walk of seven miles to the polling station if this Amendment was carried. Certainly, the men of Cavan would put themselves to sore straits to vote for his hon. Friend. None of them would vote for a Whig. They detested and hated English Radicals and Whigs so much that if a four-in-hand were sent for them they would not support a man who professed to belong to either of those Parties. He (Mr. Callan) had no doubt, however, that so degraded were some of the voters in the Radical districts in England, that if a gentleman sent his carriage for them they would be induced to vote black was white. It was possible that the prohibition of the use of conveyances would practically disenfranchise a most unworthy and degraded body of electors in England. Such, however, was not the case in Ire- land. No matter how many carriages were sent for the electors, they would always vote for the Nationalist candidate. He was, therefore, anxious that they should provide honest and patriotic electors with a free conveyance to the poll.

MR. MONTAGUE GUEST

urged upon the Attorney General the importance of this Amendment. His noble Friend opposite (Viscount Folkestone) had said just now that he did not think the conveyance of voters to the poll had influenced the vote of a single man. It, however, stood to reason that those who had got the greatest number of carriages were certainly able to bring up to the poll the greatest number of voters. If the election was to be pure, an engine of corruption ought not to be put in the hands of one candidate who could afford to employ it, as against the candidate who could not so afford. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Guest) thought voters should be allowed to find their own way to the poll. It generally happened that one candidate obtained the sympathy of those who had a large number of carriages. If those carriages were placed at the disposal of the candidate it might possibly happen that he owed his election to their employment. He (Mr. Guest) trusted the Attorney General would fall in with this Amendment.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was dissatisfied with the whole conduct of the Government this afternoon. The question of carriages was discussed at great length yesterday, and it was understood that the Government would be prepared to make some suggestion on the subject with respect to the increase of the number of polling stations. If they were going to prohibit carriages entirely, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) wished them to do, the Government must be prepared to bring up a new clause to provide that there should be a polling place within easy reach of every voter, so that a voter might neither have to go a long distance to the poll, or take up much of his time in exercising the franchise. The hon. Member for Newcastle wished to accomplish what was almost impossible. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not think they could so far fetter the liberty of the subject as the hon. Gentleman seemed to desire. He understood from the hon. Gentleman's Amendment that it would not be legal for a man to convey a friend to the poll. ["No, no!"] Well, that was how he read the Amendment. It was— Any person who shall lend his own carriage, or hire or provide other carriages to convey voters to or from the poll shall be guilty of an illegal practice, but this shall not prevent any person using his own carriage for the conveyance of himself and any other person in company with him to vote. Anyhow, he must say that the Amendment was very obscurely worded. It appeared that if he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was in his own carriage, he could convey the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) to the poll; but if he did not wish to return, he could not send his friend back in the carriage.

It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.